Underneath are the remarks that Peter Sprigg, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Plan Scientific studies, sent just before the Maryland Point out Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee
Testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 212
Senior Fellow for Plan Research, Family Study Council
Resident, Montgomery County, Maryland
Maryland Point out Senate, Judicial Proceedings Committee
February 4, 2014
I urge you to oppose Senate Bill 212
This invoice caters to anyone who is “transgendered,” a broad umbrella term that consists of transsexuals (folks who have had sexual intercourse-alter surgical procedure), anyone who has transformed or is altering their public “gender identity” (regardless of whether or not they have experienced surgical treatment or hormone treatments), transvestites (folks who costume as the reverse sex on an occasional foundation for psychological or sexual gratification), and drag queens and drag kings (individuals who costume as the reverse intercourse for the goal of entertaining others).
It ought to be opposed by anyone who thinks in flexibility of speech, liberty of affiliation, freedom of conscience and religion, and a free of charge industry economic climate. Right here are some reasons why:
- The bill would boost authorities interference in the cost-free market. It would substitute the judgment of the point out for that of the employer concerning what qualities or characteristics are most relevant to a particular job.
- “Gender identity” is in contrast to most other characteristics guarded in civil legal rights laws. The Civil Legal rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination dependent on “race, colour, nationwide origin, sexual intercourse, and religion.” The 1st 4 of these are provided mainly since they are inborn, involuntary and immutable. (Religion, while voluntary, is explicitly secured by the Very first Modification to the U.S. Constitution.) Transgender actions satisfies none of these criteria.
- The bill would direct to high priced lawsuits in opposition to companies. In the circumstance of public businesses (which are explicitly covered by the invoice), these kinds of a regulation could guide to big settlements becoming paid at taxpayers’ expense.
- The invoice would undermine the capacity of businesses to impose sensible costume and grooming expectations. The invoice professes to shield this sort of requirements. However, it demands that this kind of requirements be regular with the employee’s chosen and variable “gender identity.” This properly forbids companies from employing the most basic regular of all—that individuals be dressed and groomed in a way that is culturally suitable for their biological sex.
- The monthly bill would violate the privacy of other folks. Simply because transgender position is not dependent on possessing “sex-modify medical procedures,” SB 212 would enable some biological males (who claim to be female) to look nude prior to ladies (and vice versa) in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. (Preceding versions of similar federal legislation integrated an exemption for “shared shower and dressing services in which getting seen unclothed is unavoidable.” There is no this sort of exemption in this bill.)
- The bill would mandate the employment of “transgendered” men and women in inappropriate occupations. For case in point, beneath this invoice, businesses in the location of schooling and childcare would be denied the proper to refuse to hire transgendered folks, even if they consider this kind of individuals to be complicated, disturbing, or inappropriate function models for young children and young people.
Please vote “no” on Senate Bill 212.